>>While I agree with Greg that true mystics generally sit in meditation and attempt to loose their Self and connect with the transcendent, I don't really like the idea that the guys in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (understanding that they are not gloranthan characters) are not any kind of
>>mystic at all.
>>
>>
>OK,I'll put it another way. They are bad mystics, they are failed mystics, they are false mystics, they are deluded mystics, they are entangled mystics, they are not on the true mystical paths.
>
Ah, I agree up to a point. The type of mystic that you left out, perhaps
on purpose, is "novice mystics" - although they could be lumped in with
the "entangled mystics." This does not neccesarily mean they are on a
false path, though. All students of mysticism begin entangled in the
world and gradually disentangle themselves through realizations (which
are direct experiences beyond conception). The renunciation of
attachment to the conceptual world is not achieved overnight, but those
*trying* to disentangle themselves are probably heading in the right
direction. I can also see situations where the highly realized mystic
teacher would advise his/her students to do things that are "entangled"
so that they can learn valuable lessons - one of which would be that
such activities are fruitless. Personal experience is always the best
teacher when it comes to spiritual insight.
>>This seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>>
>>
>There is no bath, there is no baby. :) Sorry.
>
<laugh>
>>IMHO, fantasy martial artists are able to do their stunts because of mystical realizations - "There is no spoon", "You are the archer, the bow, the arrow, the target.", ect.
>>
>>
>The above are not mystical realizations. They are magical realizations.
>
Uh...
>>If they want to become fully enlightened they must go up on the mountain, but there is no reason to say that the ones who don't are practicing something totally unrelated.
>>
>>
>Sure there is! It's because they are not using the defined use of mysicism, which is "transcendance of the material and immaterial."
>
>You can argue that you don't like the definition, but it's the definition that I have given to it.
>
Um...
>>I see this as similar to the way most worshippers of a Great God worship aspects to get magical aid, but some worship the Great God himself and are taken out of play when they learn His secret.
>>
>>
>Yep similar it is. Those are transcendant methodologies, BUT THEY ARE NOT MYSTICAL.
>
Ah! I need to renouce my attachment to the word. ;)
So... there is a kind of magic (cheers, Nick!) that is neither theistic, sorcerous, or animist. It is practiced through the application of transcendant methodoligies but is not *actually* mysticism. It is not mysticism because its practitioners are not attempting, at this particular stage in their spiritual journey, to fully disengage from the world and directly experience the transcendent. They have not fully developed renunciation.
The tradition that a student practices may or may not be designed to eventually lead them to renounce the world and become true mystics. It may not even be founded upon valid mystical insights, and if not will only lead its practitioners to misery and ruin - although the consequences may not manifest in the practitioners current lifetime. (There is a danger, here, BTW. I don't think it helps to say explicitly which paths are true and which are false in Glorantha. One of the nice things about Glorantha is that oppinions in context are more important than what is "actually" true - at least for me.)
Finally, not all eastern magical martial-arts traditions use a transcendant methodology. IMHO, some eastern magic sounds more like sorcery than mysticism - the practitioner learns the secrets of how energy moves and works in the world, and attempts to tap into and control its flow. Other traditions would involved theism or animism.
Am I getting hot or cold?
~Kevin McD
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail